The conflict has seen devastating tolls on both sides since the start of the current crisis. On one hand, Hamas’s actions are described as the largest massacre of Jews since World War II, with at least 1,400 lives lost. On the other, Israeli responses have resulted in more than 8,500 Palestinian deaths, marking one of the most severe civilian tolls since the founding of the Jewish state in 1948. These unprecedented tragedies have triggered a global political grab for influence, polarizing international opinion into multiple blocs that push for varied levels of support or calls for policy restraint toward Israel.
Diplomatic tension surfaced Tuesday during a Security Council session in New York, where Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, led his delegation wearing a symbol associated with Jewish identity. The delegation reiterated an alarming comparison by some government officials that linked Hamas with historically aggressive regimes, and drew parallels to other conflicts to describe those who challenge the civilian bombing campaigns in Gaza as aligned with World War I collaborators. This rhetoric occurred amid broader debates about accountability and proportionality in modern warfare.
Senior diplomatic actions unfolded as a week of clashes with international bodies intensified. Last Friday, the General Assembly approved a resolution on a regional Arab initiative calling for a cessation of hostilities in Gaza, receiving overwhelming support and applause. The resolution also rejected any notion of forced population transfer, signaling a firm stance on civilian protection. The vote tally reached 120 in favor, with 193 participating countries, reflecting a wide mix of regional and global perspectives across the body. A minority of states opposed the measure, and a substantial group abstained, highlighting the deep divisions that frame this conflict in international forums. The countries aligned with these votes spanned Europe, the Americas, and other regions, underscoring the complexity of global alignment in times of crisis.
In this three-week war, three major alignment blocs emerged in practice. One bloc centers on overwhelming support for Israel, with the United States at its core. President Joe Biden framed the conflict in terms of security needs for both Israel and allied partners, seeking congressional authorization to fund military assistance for both sides where appropriate. This administration echoed elements of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s public messaging, including claims about the human costs of Hamas’s actions and questions surrounding casualty data reported by Gaza authorities. The discourse reflects a prioritization of security commitments, even as it navigates scrutiny over civilian harm and humanitarian law compliance.
The European front featured leadership from Ursula von der Leyen and Roberta Metsola, who accompanied the European Commission’s president on a recent trip to the region. Their stance supported Israel’s right to defend itself while attempting to maintain strict regard for international humanitarian law. This position drew criticism in Brussels for appearing to overstep the formal authority of the European Council and for tensions between national and EU-level policy directives on war ethics and civilian protection. The High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, challenged some of these views by emphasizing that the common European position should reflect the bloc’s collective values and legal obligations, not merely national preferences. His calls centered on ensuring that Israeli defense measures remain proportional and lawful, even amid intense security pressures.
Key European leaders, including Pedro Sánchez and José Manuel Albares from Spain, voiced a parallel line: Hamas must be condemned, yet international legal standards must guide any military response. Sánchez and Borrell met on the margins of diplomatic engagements in the region, expressing clear frustration with unilateral positions and stressing the need for a coordinated, lawful approach to the crisis. France’s Emmanuel Macron balanced the demand for civilian protection with a push for a robust international strategy against Hamas, favoring a united front that supports humanitarian access and regional stability. France backed the United Nations resolution when a ceasefire was contemplated, signaling a willingness to pursue diplomacy while maintaining firm positions on accountability.
The international community also wrestled with the role of other major powers. Russia and China positioned themselves as balancing actors, often criticizing unilateral actions while resisting resolutions that would rapidly end hostilities. President Vladimir Putin urged a clear attribution of responsibility for the Middle East tragedy, challenging perceived U.S. dominance in regional affairs. China, historically supportive of Palestinian statehood aspirations, signaled thatwhile Israel’s security concerns are real, a humanitarian and lawful approach to the conflict remains essential. Both powers blocked a U.S. Security Council measure seeking a humanitarian pause rather than a full halt to fighting, illustrating the strategic calculations that shape voting in the United Nations. The resulting stalemate complicated relief efforts and prolonged civilian suffering in Gaza, with aid deliveries and basic services repeatedly disrupted by ongoing hostilities.
On the ground, the human cost of the fighting remains severe. Thousands of civilians have perished, and vast numbers of homes were destroyed or damaged. The scale of displacement continues to rise, forcing large populations to seek shelter and essential resources far from their homes. The trajectory of the conflict remains uncertain, with analysts warning that the humanitarian toll could deepen as the fighting can extend over a long period.
United Kingdom, France and Germany
The European leaders’ travel to the region continued with British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak expressing steadfast support for Israel and stressing the importance of permitting humanitarian aid to reach civilians in Gaza. He spoke of alliance and resolve while resisting calls for an immediate ceasefire, conceiving instead measured pauses to allow aid to flow to those in need. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz underscored Germany’s historical responsibility to safeguard Israel’s existence, framing security as a matter of national interest. His discussions also included engagement with Palestinian authorities to encourage a path toward stability.
French President Emmanuel Macron pursued a dual approach: maintaining support for Israel while urging restraint and calling for the preservation of Palestinian humanitarian needs. He vouched for a collective effort to end Hamas’s violence through international cooperation, while seeking to keep vital services and water and electricity supplies functioning for civilians. France expressed support for the ceasefire discussions at the United Nations and advocated for a balanced solution that includes political considerations for a durable peace.
Russia and China in the spotlight
As major powers with distinct agendas, Russia and China navigated a tricky position in this crisis. They sided with particular regional and political dynamics, voicing concern over civilian harm while resisting full endorsement of any single faction. Russia’s leadership scrutinized the forces behind the violence attributed to the Middle East, while China signaled sympathy for Palestinian statehood and called for restraint under international law. Both nations opposed a U.S.-led Security Council resolution that would have established only a humanitarian pause, opting instead for a more cautious approach that maintained pressure to avoid a wider, uncontrolled escalation. The humanitarian situation worsened as aid convoys confronted access challenges, highlighting the fragility of relief efforts amid active hostilities.
Overall, the region has witnessed the gravest civilian setback in decades. The death toll climbed, countless homes were lost, and displacement reached staggering levels. Experts warn that the conflict may endure for an extended period, complicating relief, reconstruction, and political resolutions across multiple fronts. The human impact remains the central concern that should guide international actions, even as states pursue strategic interests and long-term security objectives.